the USA is pretty unique because of how pervasive our support of gun culture is (why nothing at all really passes, even something as simple as more background check restrictions, even after so many mass shootings), and guns themselves. we may not be like other countries that have done so much so successfully (perhaps even to the point that more gun access could reduce violence when 'good guys' have guns? not sure i'd go that far), but it's not to say they haven't had success.

-australia had a manhattan project to reduce guns, enacted strict gun control, and has had fruitful results, lower homicides and never since then a mass shooting. (can't be said for before the reform)
-japan probably has the opposite of a gun culture, but it's clear that they too show that restrictions can have positive effects, nary even a murder, extremely, obscenely low.

it's beyond me why we in the USA can't even pass more background checks restrictions etc. the states that have no to very few restictions have over twice the homicide rate. there's plenty of potential here- over 40% of gun sales involve no background checks. over 90% of people support background checks, there's so much grassroots support for it, i'd suppose there's not enough politicians wanting to stick their neck out for it.

-really, it should be more than background checks, but it should be at least back ground checks. we have licenses and training and inventories for cars, why not guns? it would be a lot easier to regulate and keep out of hands of the wrong people. any far out conspiracy about government take over is too remote to trump real life practical concerns here and now concerning homicides.

it's common knowledge and i can cite stats that say having a gun in your home is likely to cause more violence. (everyone might think they are the exception, but obviously everyone isn't) if restrictions caused less guns, even to some extent, it would have some necessary positive effect.

it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect. but the die hards for some reason are against it, and the politicians can't muster change.

people like to point out things like you are more likely to fall down stairs or get killed with knives than guns. this may be true, but that's only because they are so much more common than guns. if you look at how much each causes death, you'd see that guns are more prone to cause deaths.

on the same day of a recent mass shooting, there was over twenty people involved in the USA. in a very gun restricted country, is was over twenty with knives involved. guess which country had all deaths, and which one had all injuries?

'guns deter people' 'the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun'. i've heard stats that say things like half a percent of guns are used for crimes and two percent in self defense. so yes there's some truth to these points. but that only means that we need defense because guns are so prevalent to begin with. take the logic, and triple the amount of guns out there. then we'd see six percent for defense, and closer to two percent for deaths. i'm not saying we should necessarily have a manhattan project like australia did and get rid of guns, but if we did, overall deaths would probably go down. we'd be wanting gun rights, at the expense of more deaths due to the 'right' to defense and to have a gun. it is a clear trade off.
but even without getting rid of guns, that doesn't mean we can't do better at regulating them.

Let me start my rebuttal by discussing the role of background checks. The so called 40% loophole is very far from the truth. Any Gun Store that participates in a gun show is still operating as a business, and therefore required to conduct the Federally Required Background Check. What people are referring to are gun sales/transfers between private individuals. Does this occur? Of course it does. Every minute of every day someone is purchasing/transferring/gifting a firearm from someone without a background check. The response to this "problem" is the so called Universal Background Check. The problem with this solution is, how could it possibly be enforced? A gun store is easy because they must register with the government in order to operate as a business. The Government knows where it is, what paperwork that must kept for auditing, employee background checks, etc. A gun show would be easy as well because they advertise for months the location. Law enforcement could easily oversee such an event. But what about between private individuals? Every minute of every day people manufacture, transport, sell, and consume illegal narcotics despite both State and Federal Laws. How would laws on the transfer of firearms be any different? Since it cannot be enforced it would be a waste of taxpayer time and money to create the law, and a waste on law enforcement to enforce it. But then again, waste has never been a concern for the government ;)

90% of Americans want background checks!

This will be more of my critical thinking than one of absolute fact. Whenever I hear 90% of Americans want background checks, several things go through my mind.
1) Was all of America polled? - There are over 180 million registered voters in the US. Each poll taken have an average of 1000-3000 responses.
2) Where was the poll? - It's extremely difficult to find truly neutral ground to conduct a poll. A poll on MSNBC will have a different outcome than one created by FOX.
3) When was the last time 90% of Americans agreed on ANYTHING? - There is no question that the US is more divided now than at any other time since the Civil War. To claim that 90% of Americans agree on something, especially something as controversial as gun control, is very suspicious to me.

Why can't we be like the UK?

It's true, the UK/Japan/Australia/ETC have lower gun violence/gun death rates than the US. Did they achieve this by enacting Universal Background checks? No. Did they achieve this by banning "Assault" weapons? No. Did they achieve this by limiting the number of firearms any single individual can own? No. They achieved it by banning ALL firearms. A total ban is the only way to have a total reduction in the number of gun deaths and the number of gun crimes. Several prominent activist groups and people have expressed their desire for a total gun ban, but they are just as extreme as the people who demand their right to own a F22. The majority of people in the US do NOT advocate a total firearm ban. So until we have a majority and ban all firearms, we will never be like the UK/Australia/Japan.

We register our Cars, why not our Guns?

We arrive in what I refer to as "The Grey Zone". The mysterious and deadly zone of confusion, misinterpretation, and downright ignorance. Do we register our cars because we own them? No. We register them because we DRIVE them. There is no law that requires your vehicle be registered if it is to remain on private property. They are required to be registered in order to drive them on PUBLIC roads. But here is the crucial element that divides the PRO Gun side and the PRO Gun Control side - Driving a car on PUBLIC roads is NOT a right. You, nor I, nor anyone, has the right to drive a car. In order to exercise this PRIVILEGE you have to agree to abide by the rules, laws, and regulations of that privilege. Owning a Firearm, however, is a right. It was a right before the US was created, and will continue to be a right long after the US is gone.

The Government is NOT after your guns you crazies!!!

No part of the gun control debate is as toxic, ruins relationships, and gets you on a "watch" list more than the idea that the 2nd Amendment was written as a reminder that the Citizens have the right to own ARMS in order to use them against our own government. Here's the thing, that's EXACTLY what the 2nd Amendment was written for. The PRO Gun Control side argues that the 2nd Amendment was written to protect hunting. But in 1776 the right to hunt was obvious to all Founders that it was not needed to be written down. Why? If you didn't hunt, you didn't eat. The Pro Gun Control side argues that the 2nd Amendment was written so that the US could protect itself from outside nations and internal threats such as native american attacks. But if you keep reading the Constitution it clearly states that the Government has the authority to raise armies to protect the homeland. Why state the same thing twice? Redundancies are one thing, inefficiency is another. The 13 States had just won a brutal and bloody war of Secession by using their firearms against their own government. Our Founders knew that the natural order of Government is to grow, consume, and become tyrannical until the next revolution. Our Founders had ZERO faith in the government they had just created. That is why there is a Bill of Rights.

argument, hard to enforce private background checks. still, it can be done, all one has to do is bring the gun to some place to ensure a background check. same way cars are transferred. to help pay for this enterprise, they can charge a nominal fee, just like with car sales. would it always be worth enforcing? maybe not, but that doesn't mean we dont have laws and enforce it some times. just like marijuana sales and how lax yet sometimes not they are about it.
and on that point, should we just get rid of all drug laws just because people won't always follow them, no of course not. perhaps you might be against most drug laws for libertarian purposes, but the point remains that you can't just argue it won't make any difference when it would make some difference.
it would all make a difference.

i'm not really sure what you want me to say about the background check points. all you really said was that it's hard to belive so many people support it, and question the validity. but you seem to be familiar with it, and it's very well established. just type ninety percent background checks into google, and tons of reputable websites report it. 74% of NRA member support background checks, check that out while you're at it.
it's not hard to believe about background checks, cause they don't really cause much of any hindrances aside from mere inconvenience. it might seem like it is controversial, but that's only because of the way the media reports stuff. they make people think there's division here there's not. they even make people who don't think for themselves adhere to whatever issue they're suppose to, like 'im republican so i must follow all republican gun talking points'. even ronald reagan was against assault rifles being legal and stuff like that.... just a show of what it was really like before media partisianship, and what 'common sense' used to be. and to a big extent still is.

a total ban is not the only way to make some difference. i agree the political support isn't there for a total ban. but it's just common sense and statistical that if you don't have a gun when you'd commit a crime, the crime might not be committed. and that not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun, thus not having a gun hwen a crime would be committed prevents the crime.

i agree that guns are at least legally rights, and cars are treated differently, but that doesn't mean we can't treat them the same, all the legality aside. your point is more just good to note but doesn't change anything about the fundamental policies that we're trying to determine and talk about.
plus if you wanted to argue driving is a right, you could. it's only legislatively created and not constitutional, but it's still debatealy very similar. and guns are similar to something that could be driven on the roads, because they can be used to kill people.... more so than most weopons. that's what they are designed for. and it's not just hunting, and it wouldnt matter if it was. handguns aren't primaril made for shooting a moose, for example. we're not trying to stop most people from having guns, just making it all more tranparent and preventing some from getting them as easy or at all.

yes the second amendment is designed for protection against the government. but that doesn't prevent you from having a gun if we just have more checks, so you are still protected. it's still your right. and that was then that the concern was so real for guns, and this is now where it's not that huge of a concern.... which means we focus on the real world now reality of murders, instead of far fetched future concerns of government take over. maybe we shouldnt get rid of guns for this reason, but it doesn't mean we cant have more checks etc.
so all you've basically said was 'yes but it was designed for protection against the government' and haven't really established how that changes anything.

Surely we can agree that there are cars on the road today that don't have insurance, updated registration, or even registered at all. These cars are all around us and we don't even notice. Why? Because they aren't doing anything wrong. How ofter do you as a driver stare at the tags of the vehicle in front of you? I don't think I've ever notices the tags even when I'm reading a vanity plate. Although people drive illegally, not so much with speeding but as in unregistered, it's very easy for the police to spot. But then again a car is easy to spot. You can't hide a car in your pocket or under your coat. If you drive with expired tags or an incorrect license plate the police will find out. How can this work for guns? You said that private individuals could take their firearm to some location, assumably a gun store, where a background check can be performed. But again, how would you be able to enforce such a law? And how can you catch those that don't abide? Unlike a car a firearm can be concealed in public.

Like I said earlier I don't believe in the 90% claim at all and I'm not alone. Gun Owners of America, another gun rights group, polled their own members after the so called 90% claim was made. Their results showed less than 10% supported Universal Background Checks. http://gunowners.org...
Without a gun you cannot commit a gun crime. Truer words were never spoken. But what's the solution other than the Universal Background Check (UBC from now on) ? Like I said I cannot be enforced because people will do what they want to do. We can't compare UBC to the gun policies of the UK or Australia because they don't have one. They just have a total ban. Since the UBC won't prevent people from selling guns to each other, how do you keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

If you want to compare the process for driving a vehicle to owning a firearm ok; but as stated above, how can it be enforced. Your ideas aren't uncommon, but no one can say how it can be enforced.

The Bill of Rights was written not to grant rights, but to prevent the government from taking those rights. Since the 2nd Amendment is indeed to take up arms against DC, why would we give any power over that to DC? Now of course you could argue that DC is no more of a threat to the People than Canada is, but does that really change the position of the 2nd Amendment? It is there to prevent the government from even thinking about becoming tyrannical. When you start to erode some of that power, you strengthen the chances of tyranny.

For your next rebuttal I would really like you to explain how the UBC would be enforced.

as i basically said earlier.
the process of making a car legal hinders people from driving illegally. it's so obvious it's almost goes without saying. do some people break the law? yes. does that mean we shoudn't have those laws? no. it goes along with the drug arguments, should we just get rid of the laws cause people can get them anyway? no, cause we want it illegal, and it makes a difference having the laws.
would gun crackdowns be like the drug war, controversial about how much is spent to enforce it? it could get to be like that. i'd hope it just stays like the pot war, and it's illegal,and if you are say pulled over on the road and can't explain yourself, or are involved in a crime, etc, you get popped. or someone reports you. there's all kinds of ways it could only help.

as i basically said earlier.
it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect. that stat that says crime and violence is more likely when you have a gun would not be as true as it could be, if there's no gun to begin with.

You still haven't explained how the buck would be enforced. Since this is all about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, how can you stop it by only saying you must get a background check. All you're going to do is confirm the good people who buy guns since only the good people would obey.

Say I'm a criminal and the UBC is law. How will you stop me from buying a gun?

I can tell you this. Admiral Yamamoto of Japan world war II fame told his government that they would never be able to invade the United States because there would be a gun behind every blade of grass....

@sky55anchorage
I understand how youre differentiating a militia versus military. Not sure that's accurate, but I'll run with it. My point is why is the same crowd who supports the 2nd amendment is also highly supportive of increased military spending. Seems contradictory. So the whole rationale behind the 2nd amendment is outdated...? But it's already on the books so we're stuck with it? Is that what you're saying?

two other points i should have included. if there is any doubt, why not give benefit of the doubt to gun checks? at worst it creates a mere inconvenience to those who are innocent. also, is con willing to say that 100% people who are denied a gun would just go get another one illegally? that's a ridiculous notion. it would necessaily cause a positive effect.

it's an assumption, but not much of one. same way the drug laws prevent people from buying and using drugs, even though they can always go and get it somehow if they eally wanted to.

i know plenty of hot heads who might not buy a gun if they aren't suppose to, but if they have a gun, they talk about how they're ready to use it for whatever knee jerk purpose floats their boat at the time.

of course there will be people who violate the law and get a gun. but not all who aren't suppose to will do that.

and as i said at the end of the debate....
"as i basically said earlier.
it's not even like people can't get access to guns, it would just limit who can get them so easily, or perhaps at all. not all criminals (or more often normal people who turn to criminals) are die hards who will stop at nothing to get a gun. if we've restricted the access to guns, surely it will have some positive effect. that stat that says crime and violence is more likely when you have a gun would not be as true as it could be, if there's no gun to begin with."

A military is not the same as a militia. A military is controlled by the government while a militia is controlled by the members. The constitution states the federal government has the authority to raise an army while the people have the right to form a militia. What are the chances the US government would rise against the people? Slim to none. Does that change the purpose of the 2nd amendment.